Table 1.—Comparative statistics obtained from rural mail April, 1968 (Table 1). Statistics for hens only, er 
fae eee BE ee ee porno comes ployed to avoid sex-ratio differences among years, 
including 1,257 townships) of Illinois during designated 5-day id ; 
census periods in April of 1958, 1963, and 1968. vealed similar trends in abundance. The number ¢ 
hens observed per 100 miles increased from 3.6 in 195 
to 4.5 in 1963 (25 percent) and then declined to 2.3 her 
per 100 miles in 1968 (49 percent). Thus, pheasani 
Questionnaires increased in abundance by about one-fourth betwee 
mailed 1,368 1,520 1,256 1958 and 1963 and declined in numbers by almost one 
®  1902(91 1,143(91 ; 
sa! pas mete Sede) es half in the succeeding 5 years, 1964-1968. Pheasani 
Category April, 1958 April, 1963 April, 1968 
(of total) t 1,150(87) 1,105(88) were only about three-fourths as abundant in 1968 4 
Number of in 1958. 
townships Although the overall trend in pheasant abundanc 
reported in Illinois during the past decade was downward, nc 
(of 1,257) 1,221(97)  1,222(97) __‘1,214(97) 
all portions of the occupied range suffered declines i 
Total miles driven 250,129 318,605 333,070§ abundance. In fact, the pheasant range can be sepz 
Miles driven — rated into three major sectors with respect to change 
per township in abundance that have occurred within the past 1] 
ted 205 261 268 f 
eae years. The east-central portion of the state showe 
Cocks observed 10,047 17,204} 10,198 bstantial gains (about 50 in abund 
Hens observed 9,044 14,466 7,545 substantial gains (about 50 percent) in abundance be 
Total pheasants tween 1958 and 1963; however, the marked declin 
observed 19,091 31,6704 18,251 (about 60 percent) in abundance between 1963 an 
Sex ratio: 1968 more than cancelled the earlier gains, resulting i 
hens per cock 0.9 0.8 0.7 a net loss of pheasants in Illinois’ prime range (Tabl 
Goes any TP a6 ae ae 2; Fig. 2-4). All counties of northern Illinois, excer 
fee niente Carroll, were characterized by substantial losses i 
per 100 miles 7.6¢ 9.9 5.5 pheasant abundance between 1958 and 1968; the losse 
incurred between 1958 and 1963 were particularly s¢ 
Pree ae aaa vere. In contrast, the southern and southwestern poi 
These figur lightly different from those appearing in Labisk in Ilias 
and Anderson (1065:120, Table 1); the figures in the earlier puduca “ons OF the range occupied by phea-a4 iia 
tion were in error. > een characterized by very substantial gains in abundance 
§ 8,233 miles of driving were, for the lack of township designations, 
assigned only to counties. between 1958 and 1968. 
Table 2.—Relative abundance of pheasants as reported by rural mail carriers in the 74 northernmost counties of Illinois i 
April 1958, 1963, and 1968. The remaining 28 counties, located in southern Illinois, are not occupied by pheasants. 
Percentage Change 
County Total Pheasants Pheasants Per 100 Miles 
County Rank Reported : Per 100 Miles 5 1058 eae 1958 
1958 1963 1968 1958 1963 1968 1958 1963 1968 469,  yo3 1968 
Livingston 1 1 l 3,634 8181 3,006 564 99.1 33.3 +76 66 as 
Logan 16 17 y) 305 345 1,543 83 9.7 31.1 +17 +299] “aa 
Ford 2 2 3 1,569 2696 1,144 50.7 75.8 29.2 L500 eae —4 
Woodford 7 ul 4 718 852 787 15.6 21.8 21.4 +40 a) By 
Moultrie 37 15 5 27 301 554.14 i2 18.1 +707 +60 +a 
Piatt 12 6 6 305 986 402 11.8 34.6 17K 193 een +5( 
McLean 4 4 7 2,071 3,868 1,324 27.7 43.1 17.0 +5600 or —3 
Champaign 5 5 8 1,641 3,018 Loti 25:7 35.6 16.8 +39 —53 —3 
Iroquois e 3 9 1,991 3,674 1,373 289 43.4 15.7 +50" 264 —Al 
De Witt 19 Li 10 190 547 4056.5 16.1 12.2 4148 —24 +8 
Putnam 13 9 iv! 81 131 105 10.8 19.1 10.6 +77 ae § 
Kankakee 8 8 12 706 973 538 «15.3 19.7 1031 +29 —49 —3 
Vermilion 6 16 13 966 728 632 17.3 Wa 9.8 36. ee eh 
Grundy 10 10 14 323 429 283 19.5 Wee 9.3 AS reg 2 
La Salle 11 14 15 873 1,233 820 12.4 13.8 9.1 gee By 
Douglas 15 13 16 204 487 2440S 7 14.3 8.6 +64ae ag * 
Macon 42, 19 ie) 27 326 Joa tial 6.6 8.5 +843 ‘ +99 =i 
Marshall 9 12 18 328 395 176 $146 15.0 8.2 +3 —45 —4 
De Kalb 14 21 19 367 261 396 10.4 5.2 8.0 —50 ee oe —% 
Tazewell 21 18 20 284 343 356 = 6.1 8.5 6.5 SOT meee ae + 
Mason 30 20 21 66 148 184 2.7 5.4 6.4 +100 +19 =m 
Edgar 24 24 22 190 214 258 5.0 4.2 5.3 —16 +426 +! 
Kendall 17 22 23 135 131 148 7.4 4.8 5.0 = 35 aay —3 
Christian 52 32 24 9 67 2040.2 1.2 3.5 +500 +191 +1,651 
McHenry 18 25 25 280 200 1830720 3.9 3.4 244 —5) 
Coles 31 29 26 60 86 128 2.0 2.3 3.2 +15 pees +6 
Lee 20 26 on 243 147 131 6.2 Bal 2.8 30 —10 —5 
Will 26 27 28 208 179 181 4.6 3.0 2.7 —35 —10 —4. 
